We all know the story, about how many fighters stay in the ring for far too long, and end up on the recieving end of unneccessary beatdowns by fighters they would have mopped the floor with earlier in their careers. These guys also end up the worse for wear (punch drunk, etc.) because of it. So my question is, when do you think some fighters should have retired? For example, I believe Ali should have retired after the third Frazier fight, as do many others, in order to save his health because his legacy was already intact at that point.
I totally agree with you on this. Muhammad could still have been in good shape today. It's definitely food for thought.
I reckon Frazier still had a lot left after FOTC. Just like Ali,he should have retired for good after Manila.
Joe was never the same again after the FOTC, IMO...but it was impossible..he would have never been able to resist Ali goading him into a rematch..
Evander Holyfield - after the first Tyson fight. The biting incident gave boxing a black eye and nobody cares about winning a fourth world title if its a WBA strap from John Ruiz. It's like claiming to be the world's tallest midget. George Foreman - after KOing Moorer. One of the best HW victories of all time and his title defenses were stinkers. Roy Jones - after the first Tarver fight perhaps? BHop - after demolishing Pavlik, that was something special
Perhaps they are more people who should have taken an aditional fight but managed themselves differently.
I take the contrary view to many. I think, as long as they could get legal licenses to fight, all these guys should have retired whenever they wanted to...for whatever reasons they had...and I guess that's pretty much what they did....in most cases.
Kid Gavilan, after losing title to Johnny Saxton 10-15-1 = 108-30-5 vs 98-15-4 Matthew Saad Muhammad, after Braxton rematch 7-11-1 = 39-16-3 vs 32-5-2